Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Flip

Original poster

how accurate are growth scans?

25 replies

trueblood1fan · 12/12/2012 11:44

as had my scan today (32+3) & baby is estimated at 5.25lbs which seems huge if i still have 7 weeksleft?! lol.

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

looloo13 · 12/12/2012 11:52

I was told my son was going to be huge and was 9lb, big but not huge, was told other was going to be very small and was 7.3lb so no I wouldnt always believe them x

Original poster

trueblood1fan · 12/12/2012 11:59

9lb is huge - my last was 9lb & it hurt. as am having a girl, was hoping for an ickle one :-)

OP posts:

SnowProbs · 12/12/2012 12:01

Was told both times I was measuring big for dates

Was told Ds would be 8-9lbs- he was 10lbs
Was told DD would be 8lbs7oz - she was 7 lbs

So not that accurate ime!

looloo13 · 12/12/2012 12:04

haha not huge, my sisters had 3 all over 10.6lb and they are huge lol x

TurkeyDino · 12/12/2012 12:06

I was told 8lb2 on the Tuesday. He was 9lb13 when he arrived on the Saturday.

I don't think they're particularly accurate.

TinkyPeet · 12/12/2012 12:22

They're not accurate really, my son was said to be 8.5lb but was 6lb and my daughter was supposed to be 10.11lb and she was 9.3lb. So no I don't think they get them right xx

Snowflakepie · 12/12/2012 12:36

My SIL was constantly told she would have big babies, scans non stop with #1 and told to expect 10lbs +. She was 7 7. So second baby she didn't worry with all the growth scans as it was a nightmare dragging the baby there too, and that one was 7 9. They can't really tell.

lovethesun1 · 12/12/2012 12:41

First time around I was told measuring small but est around 6.5lb. Ds was 5lb3oz. We were told a margin of error of 10% either way...

nananaps · 12/12/2012 12:43

Had mine this morning, said baby was just under 4Lbs (32+5)

Wasnt interested in that particularly, was more concerned about the placenta function as my BP is raised now.

Also showed baby is breech! I bloody well knew it, but midwife adamant she could feel a head in my pelvis, bollocks.
Thats what they said about my ds and after that fiasco, i was SO glad to have it confirmed early this time!

LoisLame · 12/12/2012 12:44

I'm interested to know people's experiences with this too. Just had a scan at 28w, HC and AC both above top centile and estimated weight of 3lbs6ozs so having another scan at 32w. Have gestational diabetes and DD was 9lb6ozs so not looking good for me atm.

Trying not to worry about it but now panicking a bit reading about people having babies bigger than growth scans indicated.

rrreow · 12/12/2012 13:02

I was told DS would be bigger than he actually was (by quite a big margin! He was tiny at birth 2.8kg, not sure what that is in old money).

NAR4 · 12/12/2012 14:41

I was shown around SCUBU when pregnant with my first because he was predicted to only be about 4lb and they thought he would need to go there. He was actually 7lb 11oz. Baby number 3 was induced on my due date to stop him growing too big for me to deliver because he was predicted to be over 10lb. He was actually only 6lb 4oz when born. I think they just don't know really.

Original poster

trueblood1fan · 12/12/2012 14:42

thanks guys & :-\ to all you others going through the same worry. why on earth did i think having a girl would mean having a smaller baby?!

OP posts:

Twinklestarstwinklestars · 12/12/2012 15:26

Mine varied depending which hospital in the end I was in tears as one said dangerous low fluid and small baby and one said ok fluid smallish baby, the consultant scanned me herself and it turned out the low fluid was right and she induced me.

YokoUhOh · 12/12/2012 15:38

Please ignore the scans! I was told mine was going to be 9lb and he turned up 2 weeks early weighing 6lb 7oz! I was taking part in a fetal growth study and having scans every month; the baby was in almost the 100th percentile all the way along...

Flickstar · 12/12/2012 21:18

Yep me too, scans every month due to high blood pressure monitoring and baby always measured massive on the scans even though my bump measured spot on. On the day I had him I was scanned and they said he'd be 10lbs5- he was 8lbs10

PurpleTinsel · 12/12/2012 22:02

The thing about growth scans, is that they measure various baby bits (head circumference, abdominal circumference, femur length, plus one or two others), and they feed these measurements into an equation.

So a small error in measurement, say because baby's in an awkward position, can make a big difference to the estimated size. I think that the margin of error is usually taken as about 10% either side of the estimated size.

We had loads of growth scans with DS. The last one estimated his size at 3lb 9oz. When he was born, less than 24 hours after the last scan, he was 4lb 6oz.

beckie90 · 12/12/2012 22:12

I was told ds2 was going to be 6.5 pounds he was born weighing 9ib which for me is huge, I went into labour weighing 9st probs less and I'm 5'6 so he was big for me and got stuck for over 2hours before been forced out. Ds1 was 2 weekday over and 6.7 pounds so quite a big difference in my 2s weights, hope this 1 dusnt increase by over 2ib I cudnt handle an 11ib er lol x

lollypopsicle · 12/12/2012 22:41

Had a growth scan day before DS was born due to bump measuring small. They said 8lb 6 which sounded big enough, he was 9lb- born less than 12 hrs later. Small shmall!

confuddledDOTcom · 13/12/2012 00:13

In isolation they're +/- 25% if you have regular scans then they get a little more accurate.

Take it from an impatient mum - that's huge!

havingastress · 13/12/2012 08:57

Was told 6lb at 36 weeks. Baby induced at 37 weeks weighing 6lb 4. So pretty much bob on I'd say! she's now a little porker at 9 lb's at six weeks

Midgetm · 13/12/2012 09:54

It depends on skill of the person measuring and the frequency of scans but even then there is a margin of error of 10% which is a lot in bigger babies.

I had regular growth scans with both babies - done by my consultant. One was a small baby - she got that pretty much spot on at 4lb and one induced at 37 weeks to avoid me having a section, also spot in at 7lb 7 (big for me and he still got stuck so would have probably ended up emcs if I went to 40 weeks). Bump size isn't much of a trusty sign IMO. My bump was massive but turned out I had a huge cord and placenta that took up a ridiculous amount of room.

snowtunesgirl · 13/12/2012 10:03

I had a growth scan at about 32 weeks I think it was. They said DD would be about 8lbs 6, she was 6lbs 9!

Moominsarescary · 13/12/2012 11:01

I had one at 31 weeks and they said he weighed around 4lb 7, he was born 4 days later at 4lb 4

TheWalkingDead · 13/12/2012 11:07

With DS2 I was monitored due to gestational diabetes, so had 2 extra scans. The last one was at 35 weeks that said he was already over 7lb and was going to be big. When he was born at 37+4 via elcs, he weighed 6lb 4oz (2lb 6oz lighter than DS1), so they were way off. The MW commented in recovery that when she had checked the lie of the baby before surgery that he felt small, whereas when measuring my bump during antenatal checks he was measuring big.

Flip

Swipe left for the next trending thread